Guy from Queens, N.Y., tailor-made for the times
In 2015, Donald Trump emerged as the most compelling and polarizing American in years.
Everyone’s talking about the orange-haired demagogue, whether mocking him, hating him, praising him or, like most establishment Republicans, dreading him. In this age of rage and celebrity worship, this epoch of mad men and big money, the straight-shooting, uber- famous, cranky billionaire, the guy’s guy from Queens, N.Y., seems tailormade for the moment.
And that moment shows little sign of passing. Even if Trump loses the Republican nomination, the fears he articulates, the issues he raises and the political style he represents are set to haunt the 2016 campaign and America.
Trump’s fame has already spilled over, making his rivals famous, especially Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Never before have so many millions tuned into so many presidential debates so early in the process. Without Trump, Cruz and Rubio would be as obscure as Martin O’Malley, the third guy in the Democratic race.
Taking Trump seriously is not the same as preparing to paint the White House gold and planting the letters TRUMP on its roof. Still, the Trump phenomenon reflects, in some ways, where America is at, and where it is going, politically, culturally, and socially.
The three biggest Democrats — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton — unintentionally eased Trump’s rise. Trump benefits whenever Obama hesitates to call terrorists “terrorist ,” conveys discomfort with deploying U.S. power, minimizes jihadists as a threat or declares the problem “contained.”
Trump did not create the fears about terrorists or the anxieties about illegal immigrants. But he often appears to be the honest, audacious, patriot, especially to his core constituency of angry bluecollar, non- college- educated white men.
Similarly, whenever Hillary Clinton reassures Muslims and speaks about accepting Syrian refugees, Trump gains. She should be commended for not playing to bigots. But a shrewder, bolder, more nimble Democrat would reach out to American Muslims while challenging their self-defence organizations to take the lead in ferreting out Islamist ter- rorists — self- policing is far more effective than national security surveillance.
The Syrian refugee problem also demands nuance. Americans know their immigration processes don’t work. Pretending officials can weed out the few infiltrators among the mostly deserving immigrants is delusional. Acknowledging that problem would also limit Trump’s appeal as the only candidate willing to articulate the sincere concerns of millions.
Bill Clinton’s contribution to the Trump campaign is more historic and symbolic. His reality show presidency helped pave the way for the U. S.’s first reality- show presidential candidate. The celebrity politics Clinton mastered, the vulgar coverage his behaviour invited diminished the presidency.
Long before Trump, demagogic populists preyed on American fears and targeted vulnerable groups. But he adds a brazenness, a shamelessness and a personal, babyboomeresque neediness.
The broad contempt for Trump, while justified, fails to recognize many Americans’ worries, as the economy sags, ISIL expands, Russian President Vladimir Putin struts, U.S. Congress gridlocks, and illegal immigrants swarm the country. These concerns won’t disappear just because they are not politically correct. The next president will ignore them at his — or her — peril.
America in 2016 needs a healthy debate about the policy flashpoints reporters have raised in debates. It also needs a deeper debate that, ironically, Trump has conducted symbolically.
Fears of others will increase as America becomes more multicultural and terrorism returns. The gap between pluralistic but politically correct Democrats and defensive but straight- talking Republicans will grow — as will the desire for a quick fix, and a powerful, charismatic, leader.
The big challenge for 2016 will be: Does the campaign produce a president who can heal and move the country forward or will a nasty campaign further polarize the nation, and antagonize the losing faction?